books you don't like

[Ante Bellum]

Out of the books I've read, there's a couple I wouldn't want to read again. But I can't actually remember a lot of them. About the only one that comes to mind is To Kill a Mockingbird. I just didn't like it. It was a school reading we had this year. (On the other hand, last year we read Fahrenheit 451, and for the most part I liked it.)

[ich1990]

Nope- that's a newer one. I borrowed him off of my friend in Senior year of high school and the first two years of college. So I read Black, Red, White, Three, Blink of an Eye, Showdown, Skin, Obessed..... and of those, only Three seemed closest to a non-Christian book. But unfortunately, I also found myself incredibly bored with these books, and had Three figured out in the first six chapters. So I'm also not impressed with his writing style, though that's a personal opinion.

Okay, I was just wondering because when W4J said:

Dekker has the interesting position of being a transition between Christian fiction and non-Christian fiction.

He probably meant that Dekker was in a transition right now, and that you would probably see that transition only his newest books. The ones that you list as having read are quite Christian as you say, although I would say that they are pleasantly edgy compared to the average Christian bookstore fodder, poor writing and all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

So many try, so many fail. It makes me wonder whether it's something wrong with how it's approached? It seems like a lot of writers concentrate so much on the message that the story gets lost in it. I wonder why they don't take their cues from LoTR, or Narnia, where the message(s) was secondary to the story.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with simply being allegorical. Actually, Stephen King's The Stand was a better example of this than most Christian fiction I've read. Really, it should be sold in Christian bookstores.


So, now . . .
Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. I'd heard about how great this book was, and how it won awards and all, and I picked up a copy that had no explanation on the cover as to what it was about. So I got about forty or so pages into it and still it was so vague that I had no idea except that it was set in World War II. Some books I'm willing to give a second chance sometime in the future if I get distracted or lose patience with them (even Atlas Shrugged, despite Ayn Rand's pretentious writing style), but not this one.

[Yamamaya]

Corrie you misspelled "crappy" in that sentence. As a Grammar Ranger I expected better of you.

I didn't know "enthralling" was a synonym for "horribly eye-clawingly boring to the point of being a cure for insomnia." I guess you learn something new every day!

Madame Defarge begs to differ.


Also if you want to talk about boring, read a Jane Austen novel. (I actually enjoy them sometimes but it gets tiring when every other chapter is about the main character going to a tea party). Also, she seems to repeat the same type of plots a lot in her books.

[Nate]

Psh, whatever! XD It's a great story about self-sacrifice in the end. XD It's a long movie, but I thought it was a rewarding watch. XD

Oh I'm not talking about the movie. The movie might be pretty good. But the book is absolutely awful.

Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR0588DtHJA

[Radical Dreamer]

Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. I'd heard about how great this book was, and how it won awards and all, and I picked up a copy that had no explanation on the cover as to what it was about. So I got about forty or so pages into it and still it was so vague that I had no idea except that it was set in World War II. Some books I'm willing to give a second chance sometime in the future if I get distracted or lose patience with them (even Atlas Shrugged, despite Ayn Rand's pretentious writing style), but not this one.

I am SO TERRIBLY AMUSED that you mentioned this book, because it was just featured (so so so humorously) in the past few pages of the book I'm currently reading, called I Am a Genius of Unspeakable Evil and I Want to be Your Class President, by Josh Lieb. Highly recommended. XDD

Madame Defarge begs to differ.

YES YES YES. Such a good villain. XD

Also if you want to talk about boring, read a Jane Austen novel. (I actually enjoy them sometimes but it gets tiring when every other chapter is about the main character going to a tea party). Also, she seems to repeat the same type of plots a lot in her books.

Actually, I've really liked what I've read of Emma, probably because it's more of a satirical comedy than anything else. XD But I haven't read a lot of Austen's other work, so that may just be an isolated case. XD

Oh I'm not talking about the movie. The movie might be pretty good. But the book is absolutely awful.

Oh, okay, then we actually agree. XD The movie is supposed to be really faithful to the story the book attempts to portray. It just does it in a better way because Dickens has a writing style that will bore just about anyone to tears. XD

[rocklobster]

Once again, I'm in the minority on this site. I'm actually someone who finds Dickens a good writer. OK, yeah, he was paid by the word. But I think he wrote some great books in spite of that.

[Yamamaya]

Once again, I'm in the minority on this site. I'm actually someone who finds Dickens a good writer. OK, yeah, he was paid by the word. But I think he wrote some great books in spite of that.

Finally someone mentioned that! Silence these naysayers!

[Htom Sirveaux]

I do read A Christmas Carol every December, but I've never read any other Dickens. Might give Great Expectations a shot sometime, though.

Oh, and the Doctor Who episode with Charles Dickens was pretty good.

[MomentOfInertia]

Don Quixote, it was for school ugh!

Sentences that go on for whole pages and a dearth of thees, thous, wilsts, and etc.

Don't try to tell me 'its a classic/masterpiece' I read the twenty page intro, which stated that it was only of middling quality to begin with, and that was when it was new.

[Atria35]

I do read A Christmas Carol every December, but I've never read any other Dickens. Might give Great Expectations a shot sometime, though.

Try to find a copy of Expectations with the original ending somewhere in there, even if it's an afterthought to the published ending. They actually had him rewrite it with a different ending because they thought the original one wasn't good enough. If you find a book with both, then you can decide for youself (personally, I thought the original, non-published one brought the story up a notch, even though I was still fairly different overall).

I dislike most writing from Ernest Hemmingway. Very bleak and depressing (which I don't mind, but I prefer stuff that has a ray od sunshine to it). Hate might be a little strong, but I definately don't understand it.

[Cadence]

Once again, I'm in the minority on this site. I'm actually someone who finds Dickens a good writer. OK, yeah, he was paid by the word. But I think he wrote some great books in spite of that.

Finally someone mentioned that! Silence these naysayers!

For this I love you both! And Dickens is fantastic!

[Wikiwalker]

"Robinson Crusoe" I hated Crusoe more than any character in any other book I have ever read. He kept slaves and got upset when they didn't obey him, then when he was a slave he was horribly insulted by the fact that he had to do work. And after another slave helped him escape HE SOLD THAT SLAVE BACK INTO SLAVERY! :bang::mutter:

Oh yeah, and after being a slave he went right back to owning slaves and getting mad when they didn't obey him. And his treatment of Friday. Seriously who introduces themselves by saying "Your name is Friday, my name is Master." Seriously nobody does that unless they are are a psychopath.

I eventually came up with the theory that Crusoe was an unreliable narrator, and Defoe didn't really want us to like him. My theory of the real story was that Crusoe was shipwrecked with several other sailors whom he killed and cannibalized after he became all insane about being the king of his island. I also like to theorize that when that other ship wrecked on Crusoe's island there were survivors and Crusoe murdered them when he discovered that they didn't want him to be king of the island.

So yeah. I hate Robinson Crusoe, he is the worst jerk in all literature in my opinion.

[airichan623]

[quote="Radical Dreamer (post: 1393756)"]

As for my own list:


Great Expectations by Charles Dickens (his writing style just strikes me as SO dry. XD)
[quote]

AMEN SISTER. HATE THAT BOOK. boring and with unsympathic characters.

The Pearl by John Steinbeck. While I respect and admire the writing, the ending was... grrr.

Will of the Empress by Tamora Pierce- i like the Circle of Magic and the Circle Opens quartets, and this being the final wrap-up to both series I read it. IT SCARRED MY THEN INNOCENT MIND!!! One of my fav characters turned out to be a lesbian; and at the time, I really didnt get what a lesbian was.

[Atria35]

[quote="airichan623 (post: 1398969)[I"]Will of the Empress[/I] by Tamora Pierce- i like the Circle of Magic and the Circle Opens quartets, and this being the final wrap-up to both series I read it. IT SCARRED MY THEN INNOCENT MIND!!! One of my fav characters turned out to be a lesbian]

I love that series, too, and was disapponted by that too! Mostly because it was also so.... well, I think it helps spread stereotypes that 'manly' girls or girls who do manly jobs are lesbains. And that's not cool.

[Nate]

Just contributing again to the Dickens hate because I love Kate Beaton.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Heh, the Dickens hate is kinda funny. I've never read any of his books, but I love the BBC tv shows they make out of them. Little Dorrit and Bleak House made me cry.

I guess The Inheritance Trilogy and the Twilight saga are standard books to hate. If I'm not interested after reading the book jacket, I don't bother at all.

[Ella Edric]

I....hate..... Twilight. thats all there is to it. xD

Another book series I just dont like very much is the Nancy Drew books. I just think they are kinda cheesy. >.<

[Atria35]

I....hate..... Twilight. thats all there is to it. xD

Another book series I just dont like very much is the Nancy Drew books. I just think they are kinda cheesy. >.<

At least you weren't subjected to the ones written in the 50's-60's, which we had in my house. Where she finds the murderer because he has a dirty boot in his trunk, or some such thing, and was only solving mysteries to fill her time while her BF got a college eductation, and after that they'd get married.

[ich1990]

Just contributing again to the Dickens hate because I love Kate Beaton.

...

I guess only certain webcomics can make it past the Nate censor?

At least you weren't subjected to the ones written in the 50's-60's, which we had in my house. Where she finds the murderer because he has a dirty boot in his trunk, or some such thing, and was only solving mysteries to fill her time while her BF got a college eductation, and after that they'd get married.

It was always the dad who got to me. Nancy would say, "Hey, Dad, I am going out to track down murderers and possibly pursue them into a dark cellar in a haunted mansion." And he would reply, "Sure, honey, you just do your sleuthing thing, I am sure it is perfectly safe. Oh, and do you need another convertible? Because I don't think you have gotten into a car wreck with one in every color of the rainbow yet."

[Atria35]

...

I guess only certain webcomics can make it past the Nate censor?
It was always the dad who got to me. Nancy would say, "Hey, Dad, I am going out to track down murderers and possibly pursue them into a dark cellar in a haunted mansion." And he would reply, "Sure, honey, you just do your sleuthing thing, I am sure it is perfectly safe. Oh, and do you need another convertible? Because I don't think you have gotten into a car wreck with one in every color of the rainbow yet."

LOLZ! That was SO BAD, too! Because it was like, how much amnesia had occured since the last mystery, and why didn't she ever get punished for that stuff? And then I remember it was because he viewed her as 'a woman'.

I also hated how her friends were portrayed. You had the sweet, kinda stupid, fat one (put nicer, of course), and the tomboy, thin one. And they were such....bad.....stereotypes!

[Wyntre Rose]

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of Dickens hate and especially for A Tale of Two Cities, which ties with A Christmas Carol as my favorite Dickens story. Granted, I got into it because of a Masterpiece Theater mini-series that was made of it, and the beauty of that adaptation may have stained my experience of the actual reading of the novel, which came much later, but...wow, I adore that book.

Now, Great Expectations isn't at the top of my favorites list - I've always wondered why that particular tome of Dickens is so popular, myself, though I certainly don't hate it - but Oliver, Nicholas Nickleby, and the aforementioned Christmas Carol and Tale of Two Cities are all masterpieces in my opinion. Have yet to read Bleak House, but I intend to.

Wordy Dickens certainly is - and if you were paid by the word, wouldn't you be?! - but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a great author. This is going to earn me some hissing, I'm sure, but Tolkein was a pretty wordy author too - The Lord of the Rings is certainly NOT a quick read. That doesn't mean it's not a masterpiece, though. I read somewhere once that Dickens was also, in his own way, trying to fight against social injustices and exposing them for all to see. Just as a few examples, Oliver was a book that brought up conditions in the work houses of the time, and Nicholas Nickleby exposed the practices of the boarding house-like schools that many parents sent their kids to, unawares. Not saying they were all like that, but from what I've heard, a disturbing amount were. So yeah, all that to say, I'm a firm Dickens fan. lol.

Now, as to books I actually don't like...

I will agree with those who dislike Left Behind, and I'm quite relieved I'm not in the minority here...in my college anyone who dared speak against these books was seen as next door to a heathen...lol.

Actually, I'm going to come clean and say that a VERY great deal of the "Christian" literature I've read would come under the hate category. Especially Insprational Romances. Ugh. There was a time, when I was younger, when I ate those things up, but now...*shudders* I do remember being pleasantly surprised at just how much I enjoyed books by Francine Rivers - who was a popular writer before she ever became a Christian. Or, at least, before she ever became a Christian writer - and the O'Malley series by Dee Henderson, but other than those two notable exceptions, Inspirational Romances make me nauseous. Even those, though, I read probably more than 10 years ago, so I may view those differently now, too. As for non-romantic Christian fiction, I did enjoy Dekker's Thr3e, but anything else I've tried to read by him didn't interest me much, and besides a few books by George MacDonald - though he can be insufferably preachy at times - and C. S. Lewis' works, there really isn't a whole lot of Christian fiction I enjoy at all.

Several books that I didn't like as a kid I really feel like I should go back and read again, though. I remember HATING Lord of the Flies, but I think in my case, I just wasn't ready for it. The premise now sounds fascinating to me. I'm pretty sure in my case I loathed it so much because it was a glimpse of a world completely foreign to my extremely sheltered upbringing - a world I'd been conditioned to view with fear of contamination. lol. Oh, if only my teenaged self could see me now...

[Nate]

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of Dickens hate

How so? Dude's dryer than a skeleton in the Sahara.

and especially for A Tale of Two Cities, which ties with A Christmas Carol as my favorite Dickens story. Granted, I got into it because of a Masterpiece Theater mini-series that was made of it

I like how a couple of people in this thread have gone, "Dickens was good! I saw a movie/series based on his book and it was really good!"

I didn't say Dickens doesn't have good story ideas. The guy has some great ones! He just can't write them. Here's an example.

One day, a bartender is behind the counter when suddenly, a horse walks in. The horse sits down at the bar, which the bartender thinks is quite unusual because horses do not usually go into bars. But, the bartender decides not to question it, and then looks at the horse, and asks "Hey, why the long face?" The horse replies "Although I am aware that the term 'long face' is used to indicate someone who is sad, I assure you that I am not sad at all, and that rather the long face is simply a quality that horses possess. I am also aware horses do not talk normally, but for the sake of this joke, let us assume that they can."

Now, wasn't that bad? Compare that to:

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Hey buddy why the long face?"

The basic outline of the two is the same. But one is needlessly wordy, and poorly told and executed. The second is short, snappy, and to the point. Even if Dickens had the greatest story ideas man has ever known, the fact is he wrote them poorly. Thus, he is a bad writer. He is, however, a great idealist. Idea...haver. I don't know what the word is.

[Wyntre Rose]

How so? Dude's dryer than a skeleton in the Sahara.

Personally, I'd say that I don't find his works dry at all, but that could possibly have something to do with my own exposure to literature growing up. I was raised, you see, on classical literature, and most of my favorites as a child were either written over 100 years ago, or at least take place in that time period, so my tolerance for certain things may be greater than someone whose library is more contemporary. I eventually did branch out to newer authors, but to begin with, anyway, things like Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, and Dickens stories were much more usual.

I like how a couple of people in this thread have gone, "Dickens was good! I saw a movie/series based on his book and it was really good!"

I'll admit this is a common theme, however, I never said the movies/series were the only exposure to Dickens I've had. I have read each of the books I've mentioned, too, and loved them. I just saw the movies first. The reason I brought it up at all was because sometimes having seen an adaptation of a book can color the actual reading experience itself, and I'm not 100% sure that this wasn't the case with Tale of Two Cities. It's sometimes easier to keep characters and places straight if one has actually seen them before reading the original work. To use Tolkein again as an example, since LotR is something most people would be familiar with, my mom had an incredibly difficult time reading Fellowship of the Rings...until she saw the movie. After that, though, she sailed through Two Towers and Return of the King, because she had an easier time keeping everything straight, especially the characters, having "met" them in movie form. And this may be the case with Dickens too, though for slightly different reasons.

I didn't say Dickens doesn't have good story ideas. The guy has some great ones! He just can't write them. Here's an example.

One day, a bartender is behind the counter when suddenly, a horse walks in. The horse sits down at the bar, which the bartender thinks is quite unusual because horses do not usually go into bars. But, the bartender decides not to question it, and then looks at the horse, and asks "Hey, why the long face?" The horse replies "Although I am aware that the term 'long face' is used to indicate someone who is sad, I assure you that I am not sad at all, and that rather the long face is simply a quality that horses possess. I am also aware horses do not talk normally, but for the sake of this joke, let us assume that they can."

Now, wasn't that bad? Compare that to:

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Hey buddy why the long face?"

The basic outline of the two is the same. But one is needlessly wordy, and poorly told and executed. The second is short, snappy, and to the point. Even if Dickens had the greatest story ideas man has ever known, the fact is he wrote them poorly. Thus, he is a bad writer. He is, however, a great idealist. Idea...haver. I don't know what the word is.

lol. Well, I disagree that he's a poor writer, but I probably have a different ideal as far as authors are concerned. As my previous post - and, really, most of my posts, now that I think about it - would prove, I'm rather a wordy individual myself, so I'm certainly not against reading an author who shares that tendency. I've heard once that people can often be categorized as "painters" and "pointers." Painters being those who go into detail and, in effect, paint pictures in their listeners/readers minds with their words. Pointers, on the other hand, make everything short and sweet and to the point. Dickens is obviously a painter, so people that prefer pointers are going to find him irritating. I'm personally a painter, so I appreciate the detail and richness that go into his work. It's just a matter of preference, really, though. I love being so immersed in an author's world that it's a bit of a shock coming back to reality. That's why I love reading, after all: it's a way to experience something I'd never be able to do in real life.

[Nate]

since LotR is something most people would be familiar with, my mom had an incredibly difficult time reading Fellowship of the Rings...until she saw the movie. After that, though, she sailed through Two Towers and Return of the King, because she had an easier time keeping everything straight, especially the characters, having "met" them in movie form

*SUPER NERD MODE*

I read the unabridged Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel (it's like 1600 pages long!) and had no problem keeping everyone straight...because I have been playing the Dynasty Warriors games for years, so I automatically recognized names, places, and other things that someone going straight into the book with no exposure would probably get lost trying to remember.

So that definitely makes sense.

[Sheenar]

lol. Well, I disagree that he's a poor writer, but I probably have a different ideal as far as authors are concerned. As my previous post - and, really, most of my posts, now that I think about it - would prove, I'm rather a wordy individual myself, so I'm certainly not against reading an author who shares that tendency. I've heard once that people can often be categorized as "painters" and "pointers." Painters being those who go into detail and, in effect, paint pictures in their listeners/readers minds with their words. Pointers, on the other hand, make everything short and sweet and to the point. Dickens is obviously a painter, so people that prefer pointers are going to find him irritating. I'm personally a painter, so I appreciate the detail and richness that go into his work. It's just a matter of preference, really, though. I love being so immersed in an author's world that it's a bit of a shock coming back to reality. That's why I love reading, after all: it's a way to experience something I'd never be able to do in real life.

I am the same way. I love being able to picture in my mind the setting around the characters and the characters themselves --the weather, their surroundings, the mood/tension --to have the picture painted in my head, to "see" the story unfold before my eyes. I love it.
I will admit that I had a hard time getting through the first 3 chapters or so of A Tale of Two Cities, but once I got past that point, I really got into the story. I had much less of that issue with Great Expectations and Bleak House.


The one book that I've read in recent years that I really did not like was Absalom, Absalom by William Faulkner. I had to read it for class, but couldn't get through it. I admit that I wound up getting the SparkNotes for it to prepare for the exam.

Another one was The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy, my first introduction to this author. It was just so depressing...
Though I did really like his book The Road. It was also somewhat depressing, but had a good ending.

[KougaHane]

Baldur's Gate is without a doubt the worst book I've ever read. Note-to-self; no matter how cool a game may be, NEVER BUY A BOOK OF IT.

[KougaHane]

Another one was The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy, my first introduction to this author. It was just so depressing...
Though I did really like his book The Road. It was also somewhat depressing, but had a good ending.

I loved the Road.

[Tamachan319]

I've rarely met a book I didn't like in some shape or form. Though, there are a few on my "Don't read again" list.

I didn't like Robinson Crusoe very much (too boring, oddly enough. The pacing was just blah).

I agree wholeheartedly. I remember reading it and wondering why in the world Defoe needed to list out every single thing on the ship and how much they had of it. It was, put plainly and simply, a dull book.

Robinson Crusoe: I had to read it for school, and thought it was really boring and dragged on way to long. Every 50 pages there would be a remotely interesting part, and then last for aonly a couple pages. Then it would be more boring parts for another 50-60 pages.

Treasure Island: I didn't hate this book, but I didn't particulary like it either. I thought it dragged on, and there were only a couple of interesting parts. But those were written it a dry writing style, and it really wasn't enjoyable.

My thoughts exactly! I read a small, abridged version of Robinson Crusoe in a reading group once and rather enjoyed it. I read the original and wondered how in the world I could have enjoyed such a dull book.

On Treasure Island, you and I have the same opinion. I ended up putting this book aside, because I had more interesting books to read.

some other books I didn't like:
The Final Warning by James Patterson--The fourth book in James Patterson's Maximum Ride series, and the one that killed the series for me. Up until then, I'd found it interesting and fast-paced. Then Patterson had to stop the story every five pages with environmentalist preaching. I was wondering when Captain Planet was gonna show up and say "The power is yours!"

Is everyone else having the same thoughts as me on book they dislike? As much as I like Max and all the rest, I think Patterson should have ended the series after the third one.

So many try, so many fail. It makes me wonder whether it's something wrong with how it's approached? It seems like a lot of writers concentrate so much on the message that the story gets lost in it. I wonder why they don't take their cues from LoTR, or Narnia, where the message(s) was secondary to the story.

Yes, yes. As much as I like what Christian authors try to do, often it feels like they think up a story and then add a "Christian" element to it. In books, I, in general, prefer that a character acts in ways that point to Christ or that the story is an allegory or is partly allegorical. Other times, it seems like the allegory is too obvious, and the author didn't put much thought into the idea of the allegory adding to the story, instead of making it feel cheesy (part of why I didn't like The Door Within very much). The cheesy feeling is one of the reasons why I didn't love Dragon in Our Midst. It just seemed as if the author wrote a story and the Christianity was added at the last second.

So, anyways, after lots of typing (and typing and typing and typing) and quoting, I realize everyone's already said all of my least favorite books....except one. It's a terrible book called Johnny Tremain. It's completely undeserving of the Newberry Medal. I didn't even care about the characters by the end. (It probably didn't help that I had to read it for school.) Now, if my friends and I want to call a book we're reading terrible, we call it "a book similar to Johnny Tremain".
And so, my long typing-time comes to an end...Phew...

[Blacklight]

"Tithe" or "Tithe: A Modern Faery Tale"... -.- It's a bit of a long story why I even started this book, but when I picked it up, I was just thinking "Oh well... I'll never know until I read it..."
Honestly, nothing in the entire book made it worth reading, except maybe the learning experience... I'm still trying to work out what I've learned.
Now, I'm even afraid to admit to reading it in the first place.

(Little bit of a side note: When the inside of the cover says "12 and up", assume it means at LEAST 15+.)